Monday, October 22, 2012

Lie, please?

UPDATE --Never mind. MIghty Romney looked at the Benghazi pitch during the debate Monday night, sniffed "Not my style." and let it sail past him right over the plate. It's no longer an issue he wants to puruse. And I think we all know why.

-----

The ghazzers here at Change of Subject have accused the Obama administration of telling lies about the attack in Benghazi. Can you back that up, please, with specifics? First, though, reference After Benghazi Attack, Talk Lagged Behind Intelligence (NYT) so you don't lob off outdated accusations:

When asked by Bob Schieffer of CBS News about Al Qaeda’s possible role, Ms. Rice said: “It’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined and escalated the violence. Whether they were Al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or Al Qaeda itself, I think, is one of the things we’ll have to determine.”

Posted at 06:10:29 PM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Nope. Not with you on this blog if you are going to start off calling us names.

"Intelligence officials, alarmed that their work has been turned into a political football, defend their approach, noting that senior administration officials receive daily briefings that reflect the consensus of the nation’s array of intelligence agencies, but can also dip into the fast-moving stream of field reports, with the caveat that that information is incomplete and may be flat wrong."

Yeah, and the reporting from journalists about what was happening on the scene made it obvious that this "intelligence" was flat wrong. This was a public event, with cameras and witnesses.

But I agree with Jerry: Zorn has previously called foul on juvenile name-calling, but starts off every one of these with name calling.

I still want to hear EZ's interpretation of what Obama was talking about at the UN. By then, was "intelligence" really pointing to the video?

ZORN REPLY -- " the reporting from journalists about what was happening on the scene made it obvious that this "intelligence" was flat wrong. "
Spit take.
The Christian Science Monitor reported RECENTLY that accounts on the ground remain conflicted and confusing. Certainly the major media reports the day after were citing the video. I have asked for one lie the Obama administration told, as that has been the ghazzer mantra. I hear crickets and clocks ticking. HIs speech to the UN? Was not about Benghazi in particular, and the video was mentioned so frequently because it WAS a major incitement, quite evidently, all across the region. Did Obama say anything that was contradicted by the intelligence reports given him at the time? If so, sentence please.

Wendy I didn't say he lied. I just find it remarkable that Zorn is so shocked that some people think Obama is spinning accounts to his advantage, and anytime we question any detail about 9/11/12 we are insane hateful frothers, liars. And he has used a juvenile tactic of coming up a slur for people who challenge him.

Talk lagged ... you mean spin sorry to much information was known within twenty-four hours let alone five days to use that as an excuse.

Within 24 hours of the deadly attack, the CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington that there were eyewitness reports that the attack was carried out by militants, officials told The Associated Press. Denver Post

Sworn testimony by Charlene Lamb: Who saw and listened to the attack in real time:

"When Stevens finished his final meeting of the day, he escorted a Turkish diplomat outside the main entrance of the building. The situation was calm, there were no protests. NOTE; the situation was calm there were no protests- Five U.S. agents and four local militiamen were providing security.

A little more than an hour later, around 9:40 p.m., everything changed.
The compound's agents were alerted by loud noises, gunfire and explosions near the front gate. A barracks near the entrance for the local militiamen was burned down. In the control center, agents watched on cameras as a large group of armed men flowed into the compound. They immediately sounded the alarm and made telephone calls to the embassy in Tripoli, officials in Washington, the Libyan authorities and the U.S. quick reaction force located at a second location... Now I assume this information was available to the CIA and our intelligence community.as it is collected

Susan Rice “We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons.”

This, 5 days, 5 days, after the attack which was video taped by a cameras and a drone, listened to in real time and had people who were there evacuated and had been debriefed. We know this is fact from sworn testimony. Yet we are to believe Rice goes on 5 national talk shows armed with information from quote "That assessment, described to Rice in briefings the day before her television appearances, was based on intercepted communications, informants' tips and Libyan press reports, officials said. Denver Post Maybe Rice has a low security clearance.

Sometimes you don't have to lie, you just refuse to answer, Per Denver Post :

Why wouldn't they answer that? Refusing to do so only adds to suspicions they are hiding things.s of OCT 2 The State Department still had declined to answer questions about whether extra security was sought by officials ahead of the Benghazi attack.

Benghazi is done as a political issue. There will still be a full investigation, as there should be, but the heyday of "Susan Rice lied!" and "cover-up!" is over. Former ghazzer stalwarts like Jerry have abandoned the field, retreating to the dugout and calling people big meanies for not respecting this silly opinion. Big bad MCN is off playing make-believe in deep right field. Only poor Monahan is left kicking up a cloud of infield dust in the ghazzer cause, and even he's Ghazzered out.

Another swing and a miss for the Republican noise machine. No joy in GOPville tonight.

It seems that you over personify issues. You do not take issue with what people say – you take issue with people. This soon gets tiresome for all involved. When you start noticing that other commenters are ignoring you –this will be why.

Jerry, it's pretty rich that you accuse me of taking issue with people in the same comment that you presume to diagnose me with "personify" issues, by which I think you mean personality issues. Accusing people of having psychological disorders is pretty nasty, both to the commenter and to people who have psychological disorders. I doubt you're licensed to diagnose people over the internet, so knock it off.

I always stick to the topics of threads, even if you don't like how I express myself. I wish you would do the same instead of putting on your civility cop helmet and whining about how badly you're treated here in thread after thread after thread. There's no law that says you have to comment on every single thread, you know.

It's one thing to have a typo or sentence fragment - this is the internet, we all make mistakes. My point is that I literally can't understand what you're trying to say because it is expressed so incoherently. Take time to edit your posts and make coherent arguments and people might be able to respond.

I think the word you're looking for is over-personalize. Sorry for missing your meaning, but it's not my fault you used the wrong word. Here we have another example of the importance of expressing yourself clearly.

You've now made five comments in this thread without discussing anything related to Benghazi. Care to say anything about the topic of this thread?

When something bad happens on my team's watch, it's not my team's fault, and any attempt to cast blame on my team is politicizing a tragedy.

When something bad happens on the other team's watch, it's not only their fault, they are incompetent, bumbling, cover-up artists who probably wanted this to happen (or maybe even orchestrated it) for political gain.

Actually Jerry he has a point it wasn't very coherent. So taxpayer if you care:

In real time the attack was captured by consulate cameras, listened to by state department and intelligence, viewed live and captured on tape by a drone. The survivors were airlifted and evacuated out 2hrs after the attack.

Within the first 24 hrs CIA stated the attack was committed by militants

In sworn testimony Charlene Lamb stated: When Stevens finished his final meeting of the day, he escorted a Turkish diplomat outside the main entrance of the building. The situation was calm, there were no protests. NOTE; the situation was calm there were no protests- Five U.S. agents and four local militiamen were providing security. In little more than an hour later, around 9:40 p.m., everything changed.The compound's agents were alerted by loud noises, gunfire and explosions near the front gate. A barracks near the entrance for the local militiamen was burned down. In the control center, agents watched on cameras as a large group of armed men flowed into the compound. They immediately sounded the alarm and made telephone calls to the embassy in Tripoli, officials in Washington, the Libyan authorities and the U.S. quick reaction force located at a second location...

5 days, 5 days, after the attack which was video taped by a cameras and a drone, listened to in real time and people who were there had been evacuated and had been debriefed. Rice goes on 5 national talk shows quote: "We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”.... At 5:11 in the same taped interview with ABC she reiterates the attack was a direct result of the video

There was no demonstration there were no groups of people at the consulate that evolved into an armed mob. State knew this, the Intelligence community knew this and there was video and audio proof of it the night of the attack..
"The White House, the Pentagon, the State Department, and numerous military headquarters monitored the entire battle in real time via the phone calls from Benghazi and video from a drone overhead." Somehow Susan Rice didn't know it.

You don't have to lie when you withhold information.
As of OCT. 2 3 weeks after the attack, State was still declining to answer questions whether or not Stevens had asked for more security. It wasn't until the day before the hearings they finally answered that on background. They sure weren't forth coming about the two previous attacks on the consulate. The attacks on the Red Cross nor the RPG attack on the British.

@lexi - yep, both sides do it. We could get into the finer nuances of who is worse/more hypocritical about it (and I'm sure you can guess who I think that is), but in the end it doesn't really matter because both sides do it.

The fact that this happened during the run-up to an election only makes it worse - I'm afraid long-gone are the days when we can examine an international incident (or any incident, for that matter) without having our opinions severely shaded by who's team we're on.

Thanks for rephrasing. I still don't know that I completely understand your argument, but I think you're saying that the video and drone footage (which I doubt anyone without serious clearance has seen) shows that no crowd was protesting before the attack. It's hard to say for sure without seeing the footage, but I'd hazard a guess that it is not nearly so dispositive as you'd like it to be. The reports I've read state that there were looters and gawkers around while the attack was underway - I suspect that from a drone's eye view, it's difficult to tell the difference between an onlooker and a protester.

I fail to see any relevance to the bit about the Turkish diplomat. So what if there was no protest an hour ahead of time.

And there are a lot of valid reasons for not releasing details about the investigation on a drip-drip-drip basis - it can taint other witnesses' recollections, might compromise security elsewhere, etc.

Until I saw the Reuters story this morning, I refused to even comment on this thread, as I'm so tired of the "ghazzers" line, and tired of being thought of as some idiot partisan who can't think clearly. But -- this seems fairly clear that the WH has been lying almost from the get-go. OK -- I'll delete "lying," and go with "misleading" instead.

--Over at Slate, Dave Weigel tosses some cold water on this story to which Beth linked this morning:
QUOTE: In the same story that breaks the news and gives readers the e-mails, CBS News prints an unaired answer that Obama gave Steve Kroft on September 12. It was his first interview after the attacks. " You're right that this is not a situation that was -- exactly the same as what happened in Egypt and my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start."http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/10/24/the_shocking_world_changing_new_libya_e_mails.html

There just isn't anything new here for anyone who was paying attention. There were conflicting news reports and intelligence reports. Rice was reading off talking points supplied by the CI freakin' A, not just spinning her own convenient tale.

First -- Eric, do you really believe (and would you, if this were a Republican administration) that Susan Rice wasn't informed by the administration as to what to say, especially as the admin KNEW what was going on and the State Department watched it unfold in real time? That defies credulity. Jay Carney, a few days later, and speaking for the WH and the president, spews the same nonsense?

Secondly, from the Hotair piece:

[[Bear in mind that since this time, we have discovered that the State Department watched this unfold in real time and has video of the attack which is still hasn’t shared with Congress. The CIA station chief told them in a cable 24 hours later that this was a terrorist attack, and that they even knew who had commanded it. Finally, we have last night’s revelation that the Situation Room got e-mails from the intel community while the attack was underway that clearly gave evidence that this was no spontaneous demonstration gone amok. They had plenty of evidence — “concrete evidence,” to use Jay Carney’s terminology — that the sacking of the consulate and assassination of our Ambassador was a planned terrorist attack.]]

By the way, hotair also has an item about Letterman last night expressing disappointment that his president lied and misled, on what he said during the last debate. Do you think Letterman's more upset today?

We all know about Obama's comment. It was extremely mild and did not exactly become the company line. EZ says we cling to a fiction out of political blindness, but he won't acknowledge even the most obvious cracks in his story and professes utter bewilderment at the notion that the administration would ever shade a story to its advantage, or just screw it up.

,,,,,,Rice was reading off talking points supplied by the CI freakin' A, not just spinning her own convenient tale. The problem with that is that those talking points were outdated within 24 hours. As is the in formation Carney gave on September 14, 3 days after the attack.

Jay Carney at a White House Press briefing
“We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy. … The unrest around the region has been in response to this video. We do not, at this moment, have information to suggest or to tell you that would indicate that any of this unrest was preplanned.”

“We don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film.”

“We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. That report is false.”

To the best of my knowledge, no one here at CoS have any personal experience in either foreign service, the military or intelligence. But that didn’t stop the posts that declare some people know better than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about the reliability of a Facebook post by an Islamic militant group claiming responsibility for attacks on the consulate at Benghazi, Libya last month.

These people accuse the Obama administration of some kind of cover-up in its response to the attacks on September 11, 2012. Their latest talking point is over a batch of recently unearthed emails showing that the administration knew that a militant group had claimed responsibility in a Facebook post. What’s NOT mentioned AT ALL is that the same group later denied responsibility. Read it here:

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.